Don't know if it's already been mentioned but one of the chief problems the new Pope will face is this growing problem of homosexual marriage that is taking on a life of its own.

Not to inflame this controversal topic again but bottom line, it's Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.

Real retro thinking, eh?

Don't know if it's already been mentioned but one of the chief problems the new Pope will face is this growing problem of homosexual marriage that is taking on a life of its own.

Not to inflame this controversal topic again but bottom line, it's Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.

Real retro thinking, eh?

The Bible certainly sees marriage as between man and woman, that's why this religion is totally unacceptable to the modern and educated world. I liked the video posted by notmyself above. The Bible is a book that teaches love and tolerance in some parts, and hatred and intolerance in others. Seeing that some countries now have laws against hate crimes, the bible should be outlawed as unconstitutional.

I am not sure how the new Pope will repair all these shortcomings of their holy book. Religion was good in the Middle Ages when there was no structure and no education,and no science, and it gave people a guidance how to understand the world. Now we have structure, we have science and we have eduction, and we know how the world works (well, we don't know everything but a lot more), and don't have to believe in some mystery man any more.

Especially a mystery man who makes people gay and then says that it's bad ...

^

I'd venture to say the silent majority of folks throughout the world regard marriage between a man and a women to be the 'natural' state of affairs. How else can future populations exist. Why should it be considered a 'hate' crime to be against homosexual marrige? They already have their civil unions - what else but the continuning pushing the enevelope of moral rectitude is their agenda?

^

I'd venture to say the silent majority of folks throughout the world regard marriage between a man and a women to be the 'natural' state of affairs. How else can future populations exist. Why should it be considered a 'hate' crime to be against homosexual marrige? They already have their civil unions - what else but the continuning pushing the enevelope of moral rectitude is their agenda?

Even the vocal majority regard marriage as between a man and a woman, and the basic purpose of marriage as being the procreation of children. But neither has to be exclusive (e.g. there's no objection to people getting married when the woman is too old to bear children).

As a gay, I prefer to talk about civil union or civil partnership, but as someone who has spent most of his life teaching language, I am sure that common parlance is going to use the word marriage for these states. Can you seriously envisage ordinary people saying 'Adam and Steve are in a civil partnership'? It just won't happen. So a certain measure of linguistic convergence is going to take place here.

The real argument is about whether homosexuality is acceptable or not. We are a small minority, maybe 5%, and therefore, in that sense abnormal.... just as left-handers and redheads are abnormal. But we are made that way, and why shouldn't we form partnerships just as acceptable to the rest of the population as heterosexual marriage?

Where the Pope comes into all this is that gays hope he will examine the anti-gay teaching, and realise that homosexuality is a natural state, and therefore not subject to moral strictures. Gay unions, marriage, and all that follow afterwards.

^

Good objective points there, Endangered.

Regarding your figure of 5%, heard it's closer to 10% but what's germane to the issue of the Pope's attitude is perhaps a hiatus on condemning homosexuals and focus on say his latest theme of fighting hate with love.

Still on-topic, we see that: Bucking the trend: The House Democrats who oppose gay marriage.

Eleven House Democrats are on record as opposing gay marriage, even as support within their party for the issue builds.

Another nine haven't taken definitive positions in support of or against gay marriage.

Thorney Issue Or What?

^

I'd venture to say the silent majority of folks throughout the world regard marriage between a man and a women to be the 'natural' state of affairs. How else can future populations exist. Why should it be considered a 'hate' crime to be against homosexual marrige? They already have their civil unions - what else but the continuning pushing the enevelope of moral rectitude is their agenda?

Who is they, BM? Do you mean global gay people? Do you realize only a very small percentage of gay people in the world have the option of legal gay civil unions OR gay marriages? Do you also realize that gay civil unions in some places are almost worthless legally as far as offering the same legal rights as the heterosexually married? Saying we already have something we don't have is extremely grating. UK people do. I have never lived anywhere where I have ANY such rights, like the vast majority of global gay people.

Your breeding argument is just silly. Shall states deny marriage to infertile couples or couples who intend to remain childless?

^

Good objective points there, Endangered.

Regarding your figure of 5%, heard it's closer to 10% but what's germane to the issue of the Pope's attitude is perhaps a hiatus on condemning homosexuals and focus on say his latest theme of fighting hate with love.

Still on-topic, we see that: Bucking the trend: The House Democrats who oppose gay marriage.

Eleven House Democrats are on record as opposing gay marriage, even as support within their party for the issue builds.

Another nine haven't taken definitive positions in support of or against gay marriage.

Thorney Issue Or What?

It's actually closer to 2 to 3 percent, BM.

Don't know if it's already been mentioned but one of the chief problems the new Pope will face is this growing problem of homosexual marriage that is taking on a life of its own.

Not to inflame this controversal topic again but bottom line, it's Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.

Real retro thinking, eh?

Yes indeed your thinking is the REAL retro thing. Self awareness is the first step.

Regarding your figure of 5%, heard it's closer to 10%

I've seen figures that in the UK it is 1.3% - and that is from the base-camp of deviancy - the BBC.

Regarding your figure of 5%, heard it's closer to 10%

I've seen figures that in the UK it is 1.3% - and that is from the base-camp of deviancy - the BBC.

Any chance you can back off from your nasty rhetoric? What minority are you? Would you appreciate name calling against what you are?

It's very hard to measure gay people. The lower numbers which I agree with (2-3 percent) are for people who self identify as gay people. If you are going to include all the people who have ever had gay sex and liked it, or who have gay feelings but don't self identify as a gay person, the numbers are MUCH higher, definitely well over 10 percent. I prefer the conservative estimates because the legal battle for gay rights is abut gay people as an identity group, not about sexual practices per se.

^

Good objective points there, Endangered.

Regarding your figure of 5%, heard it's closer to 10% but what's germane to the issue of the Pope's attitude is perhaps a hiatus on condemning homosexuals and focus on say his latest theme of fighting hate with love.

Still on-topic, we see that: Bucking the trend: The House Democrats who oppose gay marriage.

Eleven House Democrats are on record as opposing gay marriage, even as support within their party for the issue builds.

Another nine haven't taken definitive positions in support of or against gay marriage.

Thorney Issue Or What?

The article in 'The Hill' that you quote appears to me to be a highly-inflammatory piece, designed to bring mail-bags full of hate mail to the Democratic representatives named.

This is not jusst a factual article, but is typical of the type of article written by small minority groups (animal rights, anti-globalists, anti-fox-hunting, Trotsky-ites and all the rest of the loony left), which name the opponents of their weird ideas and encourage the readers of their pamphlets to take extreme action against these named 'enemies of the people'.

Shades of Timothy McVeigh? (And other far-right crazies) (to even up with the loony left remark) (because extremism is not contributing to social well-being).

Minorities are just that - minorities. We should be concerned about the health and welfare of society in general. If the main population is secure and prosperous, then there is room for the misfits, but when there is a general malaise in the larger population, then fringe groups should take a back-seat and wait for better times to return.

Regarding your figure of 5%, heard it's closer to 10%

I've seen figures that in the UK it is 1.3% - and that is from the base-camp of deviancy - the BBC.

The actual percentage is of NO IMPORTANCE whatsoever. We all know that there is a minority group of people who are gay.... and whether it's 1% or 10% is immaterial.

And forget the Democrats; this thread is about the Pope!

^

Good objective points there, Endangered.

Regarding your figure of 5%, heard it's closer to 10% but what's germane to the issue of the Pope's attitude is perhaps a hiatus on condemning homosexuals and focus on say his latest theme of fighting hate with love.

Still on-topic, we see that: Bucking the trend: The House Democrats who oppose gay marriage.

Eleven House Democrats are on record as opposing gay marriage, even as support within their party for the issue builds.

Another nine haven't taken definitive positions in support of or against gay marriage.

Thorney Issue Or What?

The article in 'The Hill' that you quote appears to me to be a highly-inflammatory piece, designed to bring mail-bags full of hate mail to the Democratic representatives named.

This is not jusst a factual article, but is typical of the type of article written by small minority groups (animal rights, anti-globalists, anti-fox-hunting, Trotsky-ites and all the rest of the loony left), which name the opponents of their weird ideas and encourage the readers of their pamphlets to take extreme action against these named 'enemies of the people'.

Shades of Timothy McVeigh? (And other far-right crazies) (to even up with the loony left remark) (because extremism is not contributing to social well-being).

Minorities are just that - minorities. We should be concerned about the health and welfare of society in general. If the main population is secure and prosperous, then there is room for the misfits, but when there is a general malaise in the larger population, then fringe groups should take a back-seat and wait for better times to return.

Sorry, HB, but better times NEVER return for minorities. They're always shoved aside 'for the good of the majority'. Nor are we misfits (what a word to use!). Yes, we are abnormal (I used the word) in the sense that we are a minority group.... but I sincerely hope there's some way in which you are abnormal too! The most boring people of all are those who are normal in every respect. I must admit I've never been at risk in that way.

Sorry, HB, but better times NEVER return for minorities.

...

Exactly. Civil rights issues need to be PUSHED good times and bad or they are never addressed.

Sorry, HB, but better times NEVER return for minorities.

...

Exactly. Civil rights issues need to be PUSHED good times and bad or they are never addressed.

What about slavery?

Anyway...

Right, once established, it is just marriage.

The Bible is a book that teaches love and tolerance in some parts, and hatred and intolerance in others. Seeing that some countries now have laws against hate crimes, the bible should be outlawed as unconstitutional.

The Koran would certainly be banned in The Netherlands if it were not for the excemption given to religious books. I suspect the Bible would too which is the reason the exemption exists in the first place.

Sorry, HB, but better times NEVER return for minorities.

...

Exactly. Civil rights issues need to be PUSHED good times and bad or they are never addressed.

Civil rights are always about the minorities.

Civil rights for the great majority are denied. We are forced to accept that all minorities have all the rights of the great majority - PLUS the rights they want to observe, whether such rights infringe the right of the great majority or not.

Sorry, HB, but better times NEVER return for minorities.

...

Exactly. Civil rights issues need to be PUSHED good times and bad or they are never addressed.

Civil rights are always about the minorities.

Civil rights for the great majority are denied. We are forced to accept that all minorities have all the rights of the great majority - PLUS the rights they want to observe, whether such rights infringe the right of the great majority or not.

You are not allowed to marry? Do tell.

Gay people being protected from discrimination and allowed full legal rights, this hurts you in the majority HOW?!?

^

I'd venture to say the silent majority of folks throughout the world regard marriage between a man and a women to be the 'natural' state of affairs. How else can future populations exist. Why should it be considered a 'hate' crime to be against homosexual marrige? They already have their civil unions - what else but the continuning pushing the enevelope of moral rectitude is their agenda?

Well, you have already received many replies. Let me just add that humans are not the only species who have a certain percentage of a gay population, there are many. Penguins and swans come to mind right away, but I recently read about more than one hundred species. Yes, these are species who do not make conscious decisions about "life styles", they just act the way they feel.

So it must be "natural", don't you think?

I don't mind you knocking faith, in whatever form it may (f)take, but your declamations and blinkered view of those with faith seems to me to be as deeply embedded in you as you believe faith is embedded in others.

^

I'd venture to say the silent majority of folks throughout the world regard marriage between a man and a women to be the 'natural' state of affairs. How else can future populations exist. Why should it be considered a 'hate' crime to be against homosexual marrige? They already have their civil unions - what else but the continuning pushing the enevelope of moral rectitude is their agenda?

Well, you have already received many replies. Let me just add that humans are not the only species who have a certain percentage of a gay population, there are many. Penguins and swans come to mind right away, but I recently read about more than one hundred species. Yes, these are species who do not make conscious decisions about "life styles", they just act the way they feel.

So it must be "natural", don't you think?

No one is arguing that homosexuality is not natural. In my opinion, it is - for a very small percentage of the population. The argument is about changing the traditional definition of marriage from one man and one woman, rather than simply having civil partnerships cover other types of unions.

I don't mind you knocking faith, in whatever form it may (f)take, but your declamations and blinkered view of those with faith seems to me to be as deeply embedded in you as you believe faith is embedded in others.

folly.jpg

Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist.

Author: C.S. Lewis

^

I'd venture to say the silent majority of folks throughout the world regard marriage between a man and a women to be the 'natural' state of affairs. How else can future populations exist. Why should it be considered a 'hate' crime to be against homosexual marrige? They already have their civil unions - what else but the continuning pushing the enevelope of moral rectitude is their agenda?

Well, you have already received many replies. Let me just add that humans are not the only species who have a certain percentage of a gay population, there are many. Penguins and swans come to mind right away, but I recently read about more than one hundred species. Yes, these are species who do not make conscious decisions about "life styles", they just act the way they feel.

So it must be "natural", don't you think?

No one is arguing that homosexuality is not natural. In my opinion, it is - for a very small percentage of the population. The argument is about changing the traditional definition of marriage from one man and one woman, rather than simply having civil partnerships cover other types of unions.

Civil partnerships in many countries do NOT have the same legal rights as marriage so you are suggesting a civil law institutionalizing SECOND CLASS citizens in those cases if you don't emphasize: SAME rights as marriage. In the USA, that is not a realistic scenario due to the 50 state legal system. The USA has some states that offer civil unions but the over ONE THOUSAND federal rights of marriage that will most likely soon be granted to gay STATE marriages will not be granted to STATE civil unions. I hope you can appreciate the problem with civil unions now.

The question of gay marriage (outside the US, where they appear to have got themselves in a helluva tangle) is more of a distraction than a help. Yes, gays want exactly the same rights as straight couples. FULL STOP!

If you insist on the word marriage, you are playing straight into the court of those who want to give us less than equal rights. Yes, we will get the word marriage, in common parlance at least. Nobody is going to say they are civilly united or civilly partnered; it's a linguistic no-no. We MUST insist on the full gamut of marriage rights, NOT the name.

Advocates of minority rights are always going to be a bore to the rest of the world. I know: I was one of them. I spent a few years as a full-time environmentalist, in the 70s, before it was quite so fashionable.... and I can remember the groans as I started on my spiel. But we have to do it, as nobody will listen otherwise.

I don't think the Pope is going to worry about gay marriage rights. He is far more likely to be worrying about something more basic, how to deal with homosexuality. The fact we have to get across is that it is not a moral issue, but a scientific fact. Then, and only then, can we hope for a proper conclusion to the various gay scandals in the Church... including the paedophile priests, who mostly go for young boys, not girls.

Word is out now that Papa F was OK with gay civil unions in Argentina. Not really as an advocate but to prevent gay marriage which he could see was about to happen. Not sure about the details of Argie gay civil unions as far as actual equal civil rights, but that's academic now as Argentina now has full gay marriage rights.

Personally I am fine with gay civil unions in any country (certainly as a PHASE step anyway) as long as FULLY equal legally with marriage, although obviously using the word marriage is better. But that could be my American cultural perspective from the American black civil rights movement which is pretty clear on the concept that SEPARATE but equal doesn't not add up to really equal.

Word is out now that Papa F was OK with gay civil unions in Argentina. Not really as an advocate but to prevent gay marriage which he could see was about to happen. Not sure about the details of Argie gay civil unions as far as actual equal civil rights, but that's academic now as Argentina now has full gay marriage rights.

Personally I am fine with gay civil unions in any country (certainly as a PHASE step anyway) as long as FULLY equal legally with marriage, although obviously using the word marriage is better. But that could be my American cultural perspective from the American black civil rights movement which is pretty clear on the concept that SEPARATE but equal doesn't not add up to really equal.

From your posts, JT, I've learnt that the situation in the States is (your words) a crazy patchwork quilt. I think it would be better to keep discussion of the American situation completely separate from the situation in other countries.

I don't know what the Pope has said in the past about homosexuality in general, but I think he has to deal with that before the question of gay unions comes up. He can't really support any kind of gay union if he still thinks we are all miserable sinners.

I agree he won't be any kind of Papal advocate for civil rights for gay people.